Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Myers-Briggs Test is Total B.S. | truTV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- Despite its mainstream popularity, the Myers-Brigg personality types are as scientific as a childish parlor game.
SUBSCRIBE to get the latest truTV content: bit.ly/truTVSub...
Check Adam’s Sources: bit.ly/1Q7MHpK
Check out videos from Impractical Jokers: bit.ly/IJTruTV
Check out videos from Billy On The Street: bit.ly/BillyOnT...
Check out videos from Adam Ruins Everything: bit.ly/ARETruTV
Check out videos from The Carbonaro Effect: bit.ly/TheCarbo...
Check out videos from Comedy Knockout: bit.ly/ComedyKn...
Check out videos from Hack My Life: Inside Hacks: bit.ly/HackMyLife
Check out videos from Talk Show The Game Show: bit.ly/TalkShow...
Check out videos from Upscale with Prentice Penny: bit.ly/UpscaleW...
See more from truTV: bit.ly/FunnyBec...
Like truTV on Facebook: bit.ly/truTVFac...
Follow truTV on Twitter: bit.ly/truTVTweets
Follow truTV on Instagram: bit.ly/truTVInsta
About Adam Ruins Everything:
In Adam Ruins Everything, host Adam Conover employs a combination of comedy, history and science to dispel widespread misconceptions about everything we take for granted. A blend of entertainment and enlightenment, Adam Ruins Everything is like that friend who knows a little bit too much about everything and is going to tell you about it... whether you like it or not.
About truTV:
Seen across multiple platforms in 90 million households, truTV delivers a fresh and unexpected take on comedy with such popular original series as Impractical Jokers, Billy on the Street, The Carbonaro Effect, Adam Ruins Everything, Hack My Life and Fameless, as well as the original scripted comedy Those Who Can’t. The fun doesn’t stop there. truTV is also a partner in airing the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship.
Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Myers-Briggs Test is Total B.S. | truTV
bit.ly/truTVSub...
Carl Jung even said himself that people were way more complicated and that his eight chosen archetypes were simply a basis for begining to understand a person as a whole. Also the only reason why we love myers-briggs is because it uses tribalism to explain away people. It is the same reason why sports teams from rivalries, wars happen, and bullying occurs.
I wonder how much of a factor astrology has played into this and if people see Myers-Briggs as an updated version of it. In other words, did (and still do) people who liked the concept of astrology see Myers-Briggs as more sophisticated? Though people are disappointingly still into astrology, some of its fans must recognize that claiming someone's personality is dependent on when they were born is ludicrous. Enter Myers-Briggs as an alternative of this where we'll at least try to look at someone's actual personality to figure out what their personality is!
Edit: And now that I've submitted this comment, I see someone who goes by Emsye has made a similar point 3 years prior.
Astrology goes seem to follow the same path another reason those types of things are so popular is because they tell us how to be and act I’ve read a bunch of study’s and articles on it, it is all really interesting
Yes and that's why now there are 16 of them and they are not personality tests, they don't tell the behavior but the brain functions and their order: so how we view the world
I don't see any tribalism in the test. It's just like the zodiac, where people love hearing positive or interesting things about themselves so they identify with it.
Then again Jung himself was a man who was not a scientist, he ''borrowed'' a bunch of eastern ideas, mixed them up with his own dreams and hallucinations and that's how he came up with his theories. Literally.
In defense of the MBT, it can be used as an effective tool to create fictional characters.
It's a great skeleton for fictional characters, but that's really all it is. It's a starting point.
Yup. Even then you would only use it as a broad outline.
hmmmmmm I gotta agree with this comment
wait. So which type of personality is the tsundere?
Victor Matterstorm
Tsudere is tsundere. Lol.
Ugh I remember getting the Myers-Briggs test as a "career guidance" test in school. I wanted to study engineering, but the test said I shouldn't be an engineer because I'm F. I took another test on a different website, got T at like 52%, and now it said I would make an amazing engineer. Really solid career advice there.
It's really horrible playing with kids like that, ideas can be easily planted on their minds.
Instead the approach should be to teach them to learn who they are and be more self aware rather than generic, horrible ideas like the one you stated.
Same got almost 50-50 in P and J .
Hey there! I’m sorry you had a bad experience with MBTI. I would say it probably had less to do with your results and more to do with your career advisor. The way the MBTI works in matching you to suitable careers, is it looks at your innate personality preferences that come very naturally to you and then assess whether or not you’d be using that characteristic at work. If you’ve ever heard of “burn out” it happens when folks work jobs that most of the time require their non preferred personality type, I.e being an I and having the constantly E.
To address the percentages associated with your results, what that is actually measuring is how confident you are that type, and it is based on how you answered the questions. So if you are 50% T and 50% F, it means you aren’t quite sure which you like to use more or perhaps when taking the assessment, you overthought the questions. It happens often, and, long story short, it’s having a great career advisor to discuss suitable careers with you using MBTI as a starting point. Not using the results of an assessment (not test, btw) to determine your fate :)
@@GinaMaine9 I mean, I do think MBTI can be fun, but I'm not really convinced that "types" are an actual thing. I think a balance between T and F is just how an adult should behave - be kind, but not to the point where you never speak your mind because you're worried about hurting someone's feelings. People aren't one or the other, each is a skill for nearly any career: how to empathize and be considerate of the people around you, and how to have the confidence to speak up and be direct and honest when you see something wrong.
People aren't I or E either, and I think it was really bad for millennials' mental health to give us the idea that we're all introverts, and so talking to others will just be draining for us. The truth is that talking to people you don't know well is just an energy-draining task, but it's necessary work in order to make the human connections that our brains need to be happy.
As far as career guidance, just asking "do you want to have a job where you directly help people?" would have been far more direct and effective than screwing around with these tests in my opinion, since all MBTI career tests do is use your T/F result to answer that question. There was no career guidance person, we were just given these tests. I took some career guidance tests before MBTI got popular, and they were incredible and spot-on. They asked direct questions like the one mentioned above, and in the end they recommended software engineering, which is what I do now and is an excellent fit for me. Then everything got replaced with MBTI, and the tests started telling me I should work as an artist, social worker, or clergyman (INFP), even though I suck at art, I have no desire to work directly with people, and I'm an atheist. And they also say I shouldn't be an engineer, even though I got a perfect score on the math SAT and love solving problems - all because I think it's good to empathize with people around me.
I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's a good test for career guidance at all.
IceChan thanks for your response. I am MBTI certified and working towards my MBTI Master practitioner certification. This isn’t your fault at all, but T and F has nothing to do with “being nice.” They have to do with the way we make decisions. You are absolutely right, we are never only one or the other. The point of MBTI is to identify which we prefer! Either F or T comes more naturally to you and I but that doesn’t mean we can’t use or never use the other. Yes, all types can be successful in all careers. That is not what MBTI isn’t saying. It is a tool, a starting point for exploring careers. It is not a test (no right or wrong) and it should not have been used that way by your school.
Literally your results are based on how you answered the questions and it’s important to be aware of your mindset when taking the assessment. If the MBTI does not work for you as a tool to consider careers from, then you simply don’t use it. It sounds like there was a huge lack in facilitation, and more importantly interpretation of your results and I’m sorry that happened.
I’ve been working as a career counseling in higher ed since 2011 and have been using MBTI in fun and effective ways to help students understand how their personality will help them in their careers and where it will be challenging at times.
I think this video would have been far more effective if you actually explained why it doesn't work, rather than its origins being ridiculous.
They can't explain why it doesn't work because it actually works well for what it is. They should have explained why it shouldn't be taken too far and why you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on it imo.
Emmily The Engineer it’s a teaser clip from the full episode
This is just a shortened clip from the whole video. The full video in that particular episode did actually indeed provide an expert who explained why the test does not work.
Well, the main reasons for the mbti not being reliable/not working are the fact its result can change after time - a person can make the test 2 weeks later and get a different result, and the fact that studies have been made about it and it has been proven that, although mbti has similarities with other personalities tests, it has almost no correlation with reality. Also, even tho it's interesting, a lot of studies on this area have proven that the types of personalities theory, which is the foundation of mbti, aren't scientificly true. I've watched a really good podcast about it, I could recommend to you but I don't think it will be useful, since it's in my native language (portuguese). It's fun to answer the test, but it's no more than that, entertainment.
Emmily The Engineer it does not work because he only guessed
Everyone else is having fun in the war
Nihcas that's the joke
Yes, such fun.
Not in HD
+Doge
Oh dear. It appears you have spontaneously combusted.
The people in the comments section are doing this literally lol
"I bet us two, unqualified nobodies, can do a better jobs."
Me: I see that nothing changed in the last century.
Nothing changed at all...
*looks outside were disaster constantly happens”
Ironically this video is made by people that are unqualified and think they can explain why it's not useful, yet fail miserably.
@@akasickform Unqualified? Sure, they don't have much scientific knowledge, but this is a clip from a bigger tv show which has a team of researchers devoted to getting opinions from qualified people, and usually there's at least one cameo from an expert in the field in each episode.
@@JonathanSmith-ge4pi Do like 5 minutes of research and you'll see how much they've bended everything that's happened. For example, Carl Jung said that, sticking labels at people **ON FIRST SIGHT** was nothing but a childish parlor game. He was saying we shouldn't judge and assume we no everything about a person at first sight, not that his theory was a childish parlor game.
@@williamteriyaki8219 is this true? Wow. What misrepresentation. **checks the internet** and yes it is true. What a load of bs this vid is. And anyone that writes ideas off with the sarcastic quip about the creators being unqualified is using bias and indeed ad hominem instead of investigating the content they are trying to disqualify.
Most important problem with personality tests: You do them yourself. People are answering what kind of person THEY think THEY are. Not what they actually are.
How would a real personality test occur then?
@@zaki6548 can't
@@zaki6548 I'm guessing it would mean by a therapist who you have opened up to answering the questions on your behalf
@@johnpaulmarkes well if it's made by someone who knows you/is close with you. It would only show what THEY think your personality is. And because of biased and projections it wouldn't be accurate at all
You’re basically saying that consciousness doesn’t exist and humans are not self aware.
me, watches the video:
...anyway, i'm an infp.
Siobhan Cassidy me too
INFP gang
Aren’t we the worst! lol
I am an INFJ. Hello. 👋
@@alicec1533 but I’m an infp and the test told me I was an intp :(
Time to send this to every teacher I can think of that has made me do this test.
Edit: People are saying things like "It's just used as a reference," but during school I've had it used to determine a group for a major assignment related to it (early high school). People do actually think it's scientifically accurate.
they probably made you do it so you'd learn more about yourself not to literally label you with one of the types
Yeah, for as widely non-scientific as personality tests can be, I still enjoy them when the questions really make you think about who you are and how you act. Not only that, but I find that, even though I've gotten multiple types across all the times I've taken the test, they've all had something to say about me that was eerily accurate, especially my most consistent result, INFP. I still recommend doing the test for fun, as long as you take it with a grain of salt when all is said and done (but still answer with complete honestly). If you're interested and have 30 minutes to sit down and think about yourself, give 16personalities.com a try. It has a nice atmosphere about the whole thing, and gives a really in-depth description of the meaning of "your" type.
Well, if they used it to get a general scope of your personality, then it is alright as a very general idea. Even current psychologists who say it is not accurate to specific people say it is so widely used because it gives general categories to build off of, plus it allows you to think about your actions and why you do them, in order to improve yourself.
Save it for your bosses too. Our team at work had to take the test and then go off-site for an entire day to evaluate our results. It's not used in just schools unfortunately.
www.zimbio.com/quiz/jLtykybs7zr/Winnie+Pooh+Character
Shut up, you're a winnie the pooh! I'm more a Rabbit/donkey hybrid...
Yeah those tests work good in schools cause they could help teachers take children and assign their seats next to each other more effectively. That's about all it could be good for.
Having messed around with Myers Briggs quite a bit, I can say it's very interesting - but not scientific. The issue with the video however, is that it uses the Genetic Fallacy to dismiss the test from its origins, as opposed to its merits. I just hoped they would be more thorough, listing statistics or blind tests.
Yea, while I find the Myers Briggs theory reliable most of the time, I feel like it could and should be greatly improved.
The actual tests are, incredibly ineffective.
That being said, it's difficult to be scientific about the human mind.
The brain is notoriously uncooperative with the scientific method as it is both very difficult to access and ridiculously complex.
Hard to quantify psychological theory based on blood chemistry and minute localized electrical flashes.
Well, the main reasons for the mbti not being reliable are the fact its result can change after time - a person can make the test 2 weeks later and get a different result, and the fact that studies have been made about it and it has been proven that, although mbti has similarities with other personalities tests, it has almost no correlation with reality. Also, even tho it's interesting, a lot of studies on this area have proven that the types of personalities theory, which is the foundation of mbti, aren't reliable. I've watched a really good podcast about it, I could recommend to you but I don't think it will be useful, since it's in my native language (portuguese).
Oh, I'm sorry if my English isn't that good, I am still learning :)
At the higher levels of understanding, there are only statistical statements..but in any case, you could base personality tests on MRI"s and I would still consider it a bunch of feelz fluff. You see, I am more concerned about the threat of idiocy and degeneracy than the likability of someone...I'd rather see a battery of pattern recognition and science learning test results.
Fer Idc me diz ai qual é o podcast tô interessada kk
I wasn't aware people thought Myers-Briggs was anything more than a fun internet quiz
It's not an internet quiz, you can split people into categories according to obvious preferences. You don't need a test to tell if someone is an extrovert or an introvert
@@nc6379 Ok, so what do you call it? Categorizing people is one thing quizzes do, like are you a cat or a dog person could be a quiz.
@@Hedning1390 It's a tool that helps understand people, the way Adam presents it is very superficial and fallacious. The scientific community decided its not always reliable and therefore they favored the Big 5 instead which btw its not too different from mbti. What Adam doesn't mention because he doesn't even know it (which says a lot about his intellectual honesty) is that the online personality tests he likes to mock use the big 5 method and not the Myers Briggs method.
@@nc6379 It helps in so many ways. Especially in knowing that things some call quirks are natural to your tribe. It also helped me understand why me as an INTP had so many problems dating INFPs and ISFJs and why my ISFP gf works so well. Also, when you know the nature of a person you don't have unrealistic expectations for them to be something they can't.
@@nc6379 the scientific community didn’t just say that it isn’t always reliable, but rather that it is completely unreliable. The way you phrased it makes it seem like it is just sometimes unreliable; no, scientific tests show that Myers-Briggs personality tests have no reliability at all in determining important outcomes like job satisfaction, relationships, overall happiness, etc.
Ahhh yes, Adam, the classic ENTP
You know you get a different personality type each time you do it right?
@@patrickanderson62 i mean obviously if your answers change the results will too? What are you trying to prove?
@@user-sj4ou6jc9u Its just that it's inaccurate to characterize people into 16 different groups. Especially since almost everyone is a completely different individual. I've taken the test 3 times in close relative time to each other, and got all different answers. Did you even pay any attention to the video at all.
@Carlos Ortiz Come on, you can't compare this pseudo-science to DNA tests. Sure, a DNA test isn't perfect, but at least it actually goes off real science.
@@patrickanderson62 The basic MBTI stuff is really bad, totally meaningless. That test - 16p dot com, and other similar ones - don't mean anything. But, there have been made tweaks to the system which allow for much broader and comprehensive analysis of individuals and their personalities. I also agree with you that trying to fit people into just 16 groups is kind of idiotic, if that were the case. What you might be missing is that nobody that is seriously invested in personalty theory actually believes there are only 16 different types of people in this world. The types are more fluid than they appear. I don't mean that one day you are type X and the next day you all of a sudden become type Y - your type always remains the same. What i mean is that the types do not and are not meant to provide detailed descriptions of the personalities of individuals, but are instead meant to give broad and general descriptions of how a persons mind might function with regards to their tendencies and preferences when it comes to judgement and decision-making. So, if you, just as an example, were to be typed as an ISFP (not by myersbriggs dot org, 16p dot com or whatever, but rather a person that has a deeper and better understanding of personality theory), that type isn't meant to describe who you are, what you like, what you look like or how you behave and so on (although, sadly, that is what it has come to be to most people - an astrology of sorts). It is simply meant to offer insight into your cognitive process. So, the types allow for a great deal of variance. They are just staring points - kind of like a tree, which has a solid and stable trunk, from which hundreds or even thousands of branches hang (millions in the case of typology). And here is the quote from Carl Jung himself "... for every individual is an exception to the rule. Therefore, one can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, which applies to more than one individual despite the fact that thousands might, in a certain sense, be strikingly described thereby." It indeed says that no type can can be creatted that describe more than one individual, and i wholeheartedly agree. But he also says that many may bear striking resemblance to the type, and that is the key. This whole typology thing is meant to provide types that describe the basic cognitive process of an individual, but when you get down to the nitty gritty details, each individual is, well, their own unique individual.
Honestly, I don't see MBTI as a way of determining personality, but more of a way of trying to figure out how people think. Two people of the same type can be totally different personality-wise, but they have a similar, if not identical, thinking process.
There's a lot more to it, but I personally don't have the energy to explain it right now lmao, but that's just my personal opinion ^^
this ^^^
YES.
Exactly
1bookfisher agree Ü! Though I preff
Edit*prefer to use the chart Ü, it's a fun thing trying to figure out what your friends can be Ü
It's nice when people perfectly phrase what I wanted to say, saves a lot of time for everyone x) Thanks for the comment !
It may not be scientific, but I don't think that many people really believe that it's a scientific method of categorizing people. It's all about finding trends in personalities traits and figuring out the nuanced ways that people react to the world differently. Even if it's not technically scientific, it has been extremely helpful for me at work to know how people classify themselves so that I can divide work appropriately to play to the strengths of each person. Detail-oriented work would kill my ENFP coworker, but is perfect for my ISTJ coworker, so having Myers Briggs as a teambuilding activity really has been useful.
Edit to clarify: The Myers Briggs exercise we did at work was part of a day of team building and communication. I don't just assume my ENFP hates detailed work because of her type: the personality exercise helped us communicate to each other, and she told me the things about ENFP that were true about her (hatred of detail-oriented, monotonous tasks) and also told me things that weren't true (she is very organized even though many ENFPs don't value that). I don't condone assuming things about people based on their MB type. I do think the personality profiles are an excellent starting point for communicating with your team about strengths and opportunities for growth.
ashliebelle pretty sure you dont need a piece of paper telling you who you are
Exactly! I've never heard anyone say it was scientific cuz that's not the point. If it helps people learn about themselves and how they can improve and interact better with others then it's a good thing, just like love languages.
definitely a real dog - But humans categorize themselves every day using useless information like race, horoscope, education, social groups, etc. Like those stupid ancestry.com commercials "I used to think I was German, then I found out I'm Scotish, so I traded in my lederhosen for a kilt"
It's just how the human mind works. If we didn't have some form of confirmation that lines up who we are with who we think we are, we couldn't function properly as a society. It doesn't matter what anyone says, labels do matter because if we can't label ourselves, we would feel like loners and as social creatures, we can't function without others.
Halfway Hero love languages?
demonheart13 except peoples personalities arent set in stone they can change
Adam is obviously an ENTP.
More like an ENFJ.
I'd agree with ENTP.
Moon Dweller yeah. If anything my ENFJ friends get really uncomfortable with debates.
Moon Dweller what about INFJ?
I'm ENTP and truth matters to me, fleshed out from debate and evidence. Not established conclusions based on a faulty argument.
Myers Brigg's accuracy is legit. Both for myself and everyone I know who has taken it.
Can you imagine how completely un-fun Adam is in any social situation.
Can you imagine how completely thought-less and generic that sounds like?
Clown.
There's only one problem with this video. The Myers-Briggs test has never been considered to be hard science. It points out similarities between a large cross section of possible human reactions to their environment as well as inborne traits and even says it's a mere starting point and not a purely objective fact that "THIS IS YOU NOW AND FOREVER". So you didn't prove it to be BS so much as prove that you didn't read up on it besides assuming that people take it as gospel (and for those that do... don't, but there I go, being a typical INTJ and questioning authority because I don't recognize it as such without rigorous testing and evaluation).
Here's a recent article written by John A. Johnson (Yes... I know): www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201603/are-scores-the-mbti-totally-meaningless
He's a prof at Penn State who specializes in personality psychology and has written peer reviewed articles: psych.la.psu.edu/directory/j5j (His credentials)
If I have to trust someone on this, I'll trust the guy who devoted his life to studying Psych over the TV/RUclips host who's stated goal is to ruin things whether the research entirely bares him out or not.
The Great Gawain I mean he does have a research team to be fair, besides this us just a clip, he goes into further detail in the actual ep
No social science is "hard science", but I know more than one psych graduate who still believes it as gospel.
The Great Gawain Here's the problem, within the context of the episode. When it comes to online dating, some people treat Myers-Briggs results as factual indicators of compatibility. I think the test is interesting and a great talking point, but the level some people have elevated it to are problematic, and it's become such a part of American culture (can't speak for the rest of the world) that average people don't know that it isn't scientifically based.
Thank you. I imagine there are flaws in this test, but this guy didn't really discuss any of those; all he did was take a bunch of cheap shots at the people involved in the test's history (which is kind of ironic, given the video's calling the test junk science). I imagine The articles you linked will probably be a bit more insightful.
Hope Hurteau judging a social science test on its creators having no good scientific basis is as much of an ad hom fallacy as saying Donald trumps arguments against the Paris climate agreement are stupid because he's not a climate scientist.
Classic ENTJ mentality :P
Thomas Clifford XD
Who is? Adam?
Big jokes as arguments.
Aaay that's what it said I was
I disagree. The way he bounces from topic to topic and the ease with which he can be distracted is far more characteristic of Ne than Ni. He has basically no ambitions and just likes correcting everyone rather than actually trying to lead them to accomplish anything of value. He likes being right himself more than he likes showing people the right way. That's characteristic of Ti, not Te. Adam is an ENTP.
Also, this is a pretty sexist video. They weren't bored housewives. They have still contributed to a large degree to personality descriptions and social theories. Far more than you will ever contribute. You're just using Wikipedia and pessimism to downplay the real impact they had in their field.
It seems the biggest argument against the Meyer's Briggs psychology is that it was invented by people who were amateurs of psychology and had no experience in the field. This video asserts that "[the Meyer's Briggs psychology] wasn't invented by scientists..." 0:12 There are plenty of things that were invented by people who were amateurs in their field of interest. For example: Windows computers from Bill Gates, Apple products from Steve Jobs, Facebook from Mark Zuckerberg.
One of the biggest reasons why it works if because it uses the:
Barnum Effect, also called Forer Effect, in psychology, the phenomenon that occurs when individuals believe that personality descriptions apply specifically to them (more so than to other people), despite the fact that the description is actually filled with information that applies to everyone.
@@ellaa5986 That's simply not possible because you can't develop, use and prefer all of your cognitive functions equally.
If your dominant function is for example Fi (Introverted Values) then your thinking style priorizes your internal values, morals, feelings and subjective opinions.
The "opposite" of Fi which Te (Extraverted Thinking) priorizes external efficiency and logical organization.
You can't be use and prefer them equally, only one of them can come naturally, the other has to be forced.
You can't be a Philosopher who daydreams and ponders a lot and at the same time be a focused Financial Analyst who can spend hours analysing and organizing expenses.
For me, the Meyers Briggs test is like those Facebook surveys: I don't care how scientifically accurate they are, I just take them for the fun of it. Besides, I like the idea of being a logician with traits similar to Spock.
you sound exactly like an intp
literal sarcasm I second that. I've definitely seen people take the test (friends of mine) and they get a certain result and usually it's spot on and their behavior and tendencies match their results to a T. However, being individuals they can always alter their behavior and that in itself is unpredictable.
It just categorizes and determines peoples' personalities and traits best at surface level. The results are fairly accurate but I wouldn't take it seriously nor would I base every aspect of my life on those results.
same, i don't care about how scientific the test is, i just did it for fun
Meyers - Briggs has always been more about fun than science, and social perceptions more than true fact. We just have fun guessing other's personality types and analyzing how we would identify.
Tell that to the people who use it to decide who to hire and who to promote into management positions (things that have actually happened in real life)
Jordan Oroshiba oh man, that's absurd
AlmightyArceus large corporations use it to hire candidates, people use it to see if someone is good for a loan, like it's being used as though it's gospel
AlmightyArceus Progressive Insurance and USAA both administer them before they'll see you. You have to pass before they'll even bother with a face-to-face interview. And this is for their ground floor, basic customer service jobs.
So, yeah, these tests change the courses of people's lives.
lunacouer that's so wild! As you can probably tell, I'm a younger commenter, so I had no idea that this test permeated the real world. Pretty idiotic of those companies if you ask me haha. Most I had seen it used for us work synergy exercises.
Karen is a personality type. You can't disagree.
I think it's important to to distinguish what part of MBTI you're looking at. The *test* was never going to be accurate no matter who invented it because people interpret questions differently and answer based on how they feel as they take it, whether that's in the moment or how they've felt lately in a little broader sense. *Exactly* the same thing can happen with things like, say, mental health diagnostic tests.
I saw one account of a guy who got diagnosed as vividly psychotic because he read questions like "Do you often see things others do not?" as "Are you more observant than most people?" when the intent was "Do you experience visual hallucinations?" Tests with even a small degree of ambiguity in the wording can be interpreted in vastly different ways and drastically affect the results.
That said, there are several things this video misses entirely.
First and most obvious is that "introvert" and "extrovert" are not about how you prefer to spend your free time. They're about whether or not you usually gain or lose energy through socialization. Everyone has exceptions; the most introverted people can have endless energy around one close friend, and the most extroverted people can be quickly exhausted by that one guy from work. But the question is what is your norm?
For many people, the funnest day they could think of filled with activities with low energy costs (think: watching a movie, not something that's going to physically drain anyone like playing an intense sport) in the company of a handful of their favorite people will still leave them feeling tired and in need of time alone to recover even though the day was nothing but positive. From what I've seen, most people either find this concept strange or do it regular, with little if any middle ground. Introverts can get cabin fever and extroverts can get burnt out, but it's a question of the norm, not just if you've ever deviated from your norm at all.
(That said, the words "extroverted" and "introverted" as used _below_ are entirely different, and simply mean 'outward-focused' versus 'inward-focused'.)
The other big thing though is that if you define MBTI by *_functions_* rather than the test, you will get much more consistently accurate results. I'm an INFP not because the test said so, but because an INFP's primary function is what the MBTI labels as "introverted feeling", which is processing the world through a lens of "how does this make me feel?" and "if I was in this person's shoes, how would I feel?" It isn't a lack of "thinking"; it's the first instinct in most situations being to think in terms of the morals formed from this feeling-centric perspective. As you can see from the lengthy debate post here, I'm a very analytical person and even prone to overthinking things. Nothing about my type says I shouldn't be, because that's not how it's supposed to work.
The INFP category's secondary type is extroverted intuiting, then introverted sensing, then extroverted thinking. Based not on a test but on my own ability to read what these terms define and compare them to persisting trends in my own behavior, I can say "yeah, that's pretty accurate'. From there, some descriptions do a better job than others of analyzing how these functions might interact, and much of it does come off as very generalized and horoscope-y. But others can be pretty interesting, and reading other types makes it very clear that while no behavior is totally unique and you can generally find a few things to go "oh I do that too" in every type description, good descriptions will have you strongly resonating with one miles above the others.
If, of course, a pre-defined type fits you?
I absolutely believe the MBTI functions are pretty solid analyses of major ways people perceive and interact with the world. But I don't see any reason that someone with introverted feeling as their strongest _has_ to have extroverted thinking as their weakest, or pattern in/ex/in/ex or vice versa? It makes enough sense that logic and emotion tend to be set as opposing, as to focus on the immediate world versus what it could be. (Lol my inner Pokemon nerd is screaming "Truth and Ideals!!!") So it seems reasonable enough that someone who strongly favors one side is often less experienced looking at things from the other; not that they can't, not even close, but that it might take more active effort to step back and shift themselves into that mode and/or they might be less confident about decisions made through that lens since it goes "against" their first instinct.
That said, while it makes sense that opposing things would have trends of interacting a certain way, people _are_ complex, and I don't see any reason why there couldn't be someone who operates primarily through a strong blend of extroverted sensing and extroverted intuiting, followed by extroverted thinking with weaker introverted and extroverted feeling, or something.
So what I'm saying is, yeah, people are complex, and no, it's not really a hard science. But when used correctly, taken with a grain of salt, looked at for the intent rather than relying solely on an incredibly fallable test, and not used as a Bible for making big decisions; the MBTI system can be a very valuable tool for helping to analyze and recognize one's own behavioral tendencies, moreso than the video gives credit for at any rate.
*THIS IS AN UNDERRATED COMMENT*
Great comment!
Although I wonder about one thing that keeps on being repeated in this comment section "People are complex." Really? Once you get to know someone even a little bit, it's gets really easy to guess their behavior, reasons behind said behavior and way of thinking. What is so complex about it? People keep on commenting "everyone is unique!!" which absolute nonsense. People all over the world just keep on repeating themselves in very defined ways. Might not be 10, 16 or twenty, but once you get to know one person from a certain group, applying that to another person from the same group always brings desired results. Hell, even outward physical experience coincides with specific behaviors and personalities. We people are way too easy to predict and manipulate...
@@Kosac07 Nah, I understand where you're coming from, but if you really believe applying things from one person to another _always_ works, you need a bigger sample size. Or at best, it only "works" in extremely broad vague terms.
"Everyone is unique" and "people as a whole are often easy to manipulate" are simultaneously true statements. It isn't that everything about each person is unique or that people are so different as to be wholly unpredictable, but every person has a unique _combination_ of behavior patterns, thought processes, values, interests, experiences, and so-on. Identifying one or a few major things can give you solid insight and help to predict how they might react to certain things, but the devil's in the details.
As a silly example: Let's say you figure out most people in Group A are highly reward-motivated. Several of them are easy to bribe with chocolate cake. But if you keep trying exactly that, you might find another person is allergic to chocolate, another is on a diet and gets annoyed instead of tempted, another doesn't like sweets in general, etc. Even if they all find rewards motivating, which rewards will work varies. That's something unique. Taking it further, though, some people might love the same reward every time while others will want variety. Some people are intensely reward-motivated while others are more mildly so and prioritize other things higher. Etc.
Experiences and circumstances are a far bigger factor, however. People change as they experience more, sometimes for "better", sometimes for "worse", and often just different. Two people who were very alike five years ago could be extremely different now, and people who were very different could become more similar, with or without being around each other.
Imagine two kids are impulsive troublemakers who are lashing out due to feeling ignored and lonely but also because trouble is fun. Perhaps one gets better advice or meets people they mesh with better, starts getting their need for better connections met, and settles down a lot. They can still be impulsive but manage it better, and still enjoy some mischief but in more responsible ways. Meanwhile, the other one is disproportionately punished and the people they do attempt to trust abandon them at crucial points. They conclude that if no one will stand by them when things get tough, there's no point trying to please others beyond the immediate moment. They become more reckless and less concerned about consequences. Humans tend to take lessons away from most anything and adapt accordingly. In this case, person A might be more socially functional but more open to being hurt, while person B has become more of a jerk but is better at protecting themself. Given further pushes, maybe A would withdraw hard if something did hurt them because they were so unprepared for betrayal, while B could become extremely reliable if they did find some folks they respected because of the armor they developed. People aren't necessarily one thing forever.
Then you have to consider things like... mental health, both long-term and short-term. Stress can affect people intensely, and while you can observe how they respond, you can't always predict when they'll be stressed or when THIS thing hits a far more sensitive nerve than usual. Long-term, some disorders heavily lend toward certain personality types and behaviors, but it's not a one-for-one. Someone who's bipolar is almost certainly going to be highly emotional if they're not in a stage of depression that just leaves them numb, but that doesn't mean all mania or all depression looks the same. Someone with ASPD is going to have much more limited emotional responses outside of certain types, and be much more logic-driven, but that doesn't mean everyone operates under the same logic. People feel and think differently based on their personal observations and knowledge. (Disclaimer: We are not stigmatizing any disorders in this house.)
Hell, even just... memes. References. The things that will get people to react with enthusiastic delight or awkward confusion. Those vary wildly from person to person.
THAT'S what we mean when we say "people are complex" and "people are unique." People have solid, noticeable patterns, and recognizing those can make it easier to get expected and desired responses from them, for better or worse. (The same insight that can be used to take advantage of someone can also persuade them to make good decisions or boost their morale, after all.) But what combination of factors they have, what will be associated with different responses, and what happens to them from all sources over time to help direct how they develop... All that is unique. Some tactics work to varying extents on most people, but only most. No matter how thoroughly you know someone, there can always be something unexpected that comes up at some point. You won't always see it happen, but it always could.
@@WyrdFayth People don't react based on small details, but on their core programs and those are always the same, regardless if you talk to someone from China, India, Philippines, Mexico, USA, different parts of Europe, etc. People are just a bunch of copy-pastes who interpret things always in the same discrete manners. Small differences in experiences are completely irrelevant to their behavior.
@@Kosac07 I used mostly minor examples, but consider something like a trigger reaction. If something that "should" work to appeal to someone based on broad trends instead elicits intense distress, that's an important factor. Knowing the broad patterns doesn't tell you how to access different parts and avoid complications, nor does it account for people's development over time.
Thar's especially important to understand if you want to be respectful, but literally even if your goal was purely to use people, recognizing their individual needs and interests would net you better and more consistent results. People are more willing to do more for others when they feel understood and treated well, and when that behavior has been consistent for longer. Most people actively enjoy helping those they consider friends, even if there are exceptions.
Some broad and basic tactics might be persuasive short-term, and maybe that would get you by, but listen because I'm being very serious. I don't actually care what people's motivations are. If someone doesn't internally care about others' wants or needs, or sees people as tools and playthings, that can very easily _become_ concerning, but it doesn't innately have to be. Some people aren't wired for empathy, but not feeling bad about hurting people isn't the same as hurting people indiscriminately for no reason. What I'm telling you though is that even for someone like that-- if you're like that or leaning that direction or if you're just speculating, either way-- it is more effective and sustainable to still treat people overall decently.
If you behave in ways that are perceived as kind overall, and especially if you help ensure the people around you have their general needs met, they become more endeared and attached, and they're less likely to mind or even question when you ask for things from them in return. The more secure and respected they feel, the less likely they are to suspect or even believe it if told that you're doing this for yourself. The lower chance of people feeling wary or used, the stronger their loyalty can become. The chances of you needing to find new people to replace ones who have become endeared get much lower.
You might be able to dabble in a lot of that with broad trend data, but it won't be as powerful. People like to feel unique, and tend to connect more thoroughly when they align on small details as well. Shared experiences are one of the most powerful bonding tools for most people.
Basically what I'm saying is... I've seen people exasperated before with sentiments like, "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people!" But honestly, that's unfair. If you inherently don't, or only do in specific circumstances, you can't just flip a switch. So no, what I say instead is that you don't _need_ to sincerely _care about_ other people to still choose to treat them well. Taking the time to get to know and overall respect people on an individual level can be actively more beneficial _to you_, especially in the long run. And decent behavior for self-serving reasons is exponentially better than harmful behavior for allegedly noble reasons.
And case in point for people changing: I wouldn't have said all this years ago. I've just met a lot of kinds of people and become more aware and accepting of different ways of thinking.
Oh Adam, such an INTP.
BlaineTog Somebody else called him an ENTJ. Which one is it?
Eridan Ampora it's like guessing his zodiac sign
I see him as an entp
Definitely not an INTP. Maybe you should do some research.
as an INFJ I'm offended by this comment
Adam is arguing that if something has an unreliable origen, the thing itself must be unreliable. This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy (aka the fallacy of origins) which occurs when "a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context." In fact, there are many scientists today that are ardent practitioners and researchers of this test and have compelling evidence for its validity. Dario Nardi, a neuroscientist at USC, is among them.
caucasianal evidence can always be skewed by ones personal gain though.
Hell look at about 60% of your "studies" published, and you'll notice strangely small control group, peculiar graphing, and strange ratios that point to what the person's desired outcome is.
caucasianal stop
caucasianal not exactly, that deals more with foundations right? Well our societal ideas of what is normal and acceptable human behavior changes nearly every decade. So yes, and outdated personality test is nearly useless
Apparently, this was part of a larger episode.
However... I think that if anyone actually thinks about it they can see it's a generalization. Also, no one is one letter or the other; it's a blend of the two with stronger trends to either side. So of course people who are on the metaphorical fence will have their results changed by personality. I for one know that I'll NEVER be considered an extrovert... Idk I am seeing lots of arguments that that makes it garbage
Okay yeah, but there are cognitive functions when it comes to MBTI though? A lot of people know that the tests are inaccurate and typing people just by letters is wrong.
and what's the evidence behind these cognitive functions?
@@sztrife1 Cognitive theory?? I mean, if you really want to get into nitty gritty detail, there are different cognitive processes, and each cognitive process corresponds to different neuro activation regions in our brain. There's a misunderstanding here. Cognitive functions aren't some new idea or concept that you need "facts" to back up, they are simply a representation of our cognitive processes that we most typically default to. Though, the term itself is strictly used within psychometrics.
There are a total of four types of cognitive functions (processes): our intuitive cognitive function, which deals with the unconscious parts of our mind. Our sensing cognitive function, which is self-explanatory (i.e. sensory information from the 5 senses). Our thinking cognitive function. And our emotional cognitive function. And each of these four types can be further separated into introverted and extroverted subtypes.
Of course, if anyone here is actually a cognitive psychology expert, feel free to correct me if needed. I've only studied general psych, not in any specialized fields.
This is a great example of ad hominem. Adam didn't ruin the theory itself, and instead attacked the creators of it.
It was unfortunate to see this set of arguments from Adam.
He showed that it’s unscientific and its creator didn’t believe it was true
That’s enough to prove that this "theory” is stupid
oh yes how dare he show the creator thought it was stupid and explain how the method wasn't peer reviewed. what you did is a classic example of a strawman fallacy.
@@joeblack6999 I'm not referring the original creator, but the second part, 0:57 "Mystery novelist Isabelle Briggs Myers and her magazine writer mother Katherine Cook Briggs had a lot of time on their hands" and then goes on with a condescending skit about their qualifications.
Ad hominem - "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
If he wants to debunk the Myers-Briggs Test, he needs to debunk the Myer-Briggs Test, not debunk the Carlos Jung Test while slandering Myers and Briggs.
@@JohnSmith-zg2id the creator debunked it himself... so does the episode your point is moot.
Who eles didn't even know what Myers-Briggs test was.
Rowan Dusseau I never heard of it until this video.
Ditto.
Rowan Dusseau me
Rowan Dusseau same
I know a lot of people that swear by theirs
Not validating the Myers-Briggs test, but you don't need to be a scientist to invent something scientific. Not do you need to be educated. Two bored women can create something that could change the scientific community, even if they had no more than a high school education. Many scientific discoveries occur as momentary epiphanies.
Yes but it still needs to be done with the scientific method with evidence and experimentation which evidently did not happen with Myer Briggs. "Many scientific discoveries occur as momentary epiphanies" hypotheses sure but there still needs to be the work done after that, Einstein might have dreamt up some of the basic concepts of his ideas but he still put in the hard yards mathematically to go from dreaming about trains to the theory of relativity.
superblonde more like it trashed people who aren't scientists using unscientific methods to establish create a theory and proclaim it as social science. Only person seeing sexism here is you
Ummmm scientific comes from the same root word so it kind of shows a link.
superblonde I agree that the way they filmed the thing was very condescending. Makes sense that a mystery writer would think up something about the various personalities of people. Their job as a writer is creating characters with various motivations and personalities.
superblonde Do you know what sarcasm is? That whole kitchen scene was a joke, meant to mock the stereotype that women were always in the kitchen. This whole show has a undertone of sarcasm. "Let's do some science or whatever", "I bet us two, unqualified nobodies could do a better job." Not to mention, they would have offices or a place at work to do their writing. One was a magazine writer, before the internet, so she had to go to the office to write her articles.
It’s kinda disappointing that the majority knows and uses MBTI only by dichotomies(I, E, S, N, T, F, J, P) when it’s usually way too stereotypical and a lot of times inaccurate. :/
People really should research and type by cognitive functions(Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ti, Te) instead. Although it’s more complicated than dichotomies, it’s that much more accurate.
I could explain everything about it here but it’ll take too long and I honestly don’t have enough patience for that lol please do your own research, it’s very interesting when you understand how it works.
While you’re at it you should learn about MBTI Loops and Grips as well, they’re about how each MBTI types are like when they’re in a stressed/unhealthy state.
If you’re really into it, you should also learn about Enneagrams and Tritypes.
These are all very interesting and great for figuring people out including yourself.
And one more thing, don’t try to fake your personality to make it fit in with the stereotypes of a certain MBTI type, it’s pretty dumb and unhealthy; just be yourself.
You don’t have to be exactly like your MBTI type, everyone is different in their own ways which is why MBTI wasn’t scientifically proven to be accurate. You should go with the type that you can relate to the MOST after thorough researching.
Well, at last here are my personality types:
- MBTI: INTJ (Ni, Te, Fi, Se)
- Enneagram: 5w6
- Tritype: 512
Good luck :)
How about INFJ?
Could you explain some more please?
You can really go pretty deep into this and realize how much this can do for both self and interpersonal understanding. I'm learning stuff every day. Today I learned that part of the reason introverts are so misunderstood is that they present to the world with their parent function (highest extroverted function for them) instead of their hero like extroverts do camouflaging their strongest trait. Its easy to identify an Fe or Te dom, but INTPs and INFPs are often mixed up until you know them because they both use Ne primarily to interact with the outside world.
Hehe finally I meet someone here who _actually_ knows the real MBTI. This comment should really be at the top, what a shame.
@Caliyah g As an infp too I disagree. Not a matter of whether it's useful, but it gives a much deeper insight that is much more convincing to the user.
He's right, in fact when hiring employees for a job you can't use this test because it is against the law in some states and it is inaccurate with results when using other tests
Adam ruin gamestop or game trading
Nicoplia too easy he tackles things that'll change your perception. With game trading we all know we're getting screwed to various degrees.
Nicoplia That's too easy
You do t need Adam to ruin something so obvious Kappa
Too late
Step 1. Get a PC
Step 2. Download steam
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit
It's horoscopes for MBA graduates
MBA graduates genocide when
Someone's obviously not happy about their result.
Well, u need to check the mbtionline.com before talking sht xD
No. They are not personality tests like people think. They tell the dominant brain functions so how someone interacts with the world not their behavior. Try and debunk the brain functions to see if it's horoscope
Really feels like this video ridicules the sources with opportunistic jabs rather than challenging the thinking behind it... I mean, maybe there are flaws in the test, but I would have preferred to hear those rather than a series of cheesy skits mocking the people behind the test.
The four letters are based on an extension of the Jungian Cognitive Functions defined in _Psychological Types_ by Carl Jung. Jung defined three dichotomies (hence there being initially eight categories) determining how an individual perceives and processes information. Myers and Briggs added an additional dichotomy, resulting in sixteen categories.
If you're curious, I found this information from a quick search, and there's much more available if you have further questions. That said, although the works were based more on personal experience than formal data, I said I was annoyed by the fact that they didn't discuss the actual theory. Like I said, maybe there are flaws in it, but I'd like to actually hear those flaws.
A bit late but this isn't the full episode, correct me if I'm wrong.
This isn’t the full episode, he doesn’t just talk about the origins of the test
It's just a teaser.
We had an assignment as part of my neuroscience degree where we had to correct everything he got wrong in this video. Jung was a bit out of the box but this video is just based on theatrics
This is so strange to me, because there have been at least 3-4 separate times that I have been talking to someone and immediately recognized my fairly-rare personality type (INFJ), with no leading I have asked if they`ve taken the test and what their results were, and yup, exact same as mine (like 3% of the population gets those results). It`s always been online, their style of writing/thinking is familiar and I can pick them out of a crowd as ``one of my own kind``.
I feel like it`s explained my personality better than other tests have, and even read my husband`s results to see if it`s one of those vague horoscope results that fit everyone if you try hard enough - nope, totally different, but we have a rare pairing that wouldn`t seem to work well on paper but is actually a well-talked about pairing because they have a very unique relationship dynamic that also fits us perfectly.
I don’t get what exactly this is debunking. I never thought it was based on scientific data, it was a fun way to categorize people. I mean if you think about it every single social construct is untrue and is made entirely from just the way we perceive things and not truly how they are. I mean this test just measures the basic standing out qualities of a persons personality. I mean while we’re at it we might as well say personality doesn’t exist and we all just make decisions based on how our environment raised us and partly genetics
Right, exactly. What is there even to debunk? Some people are introverted, and others are extroverted, and when you come up with four separate dimensions then you get 2^4=16 total possible combinations. It might not be _useful_, but how exactly is it false??
@@stanprogressstanyang The point, I think, was to show and inform people about it has no scientific backing to the personality claims. If someone tried using the Myers-Briggs test as scientific proof of say, sociopathy, there would be no genuine scientific evidence behind this and would be as acceptable as using horoscopes as proof instead.
@@Johnof1000Suns , but in fact no one even makes those sorts of claims, as far as i can tell. instead they just say "oh, you're an INTJ? that makes you very much like an INTJ". it's not useful, but it's also not false.
@@stanprogressstanyang Well, some people are introverted, and some people are extroverted, but the definitions of those 2 words varies greatly between scientists, and recent papers have said that up to 60% of Americans don't fit well into either category. Although, it is still useful in some ways for the average layperson. But the main problem with it is people who go:
MY ENTIRE PERSONALITY, MY SELF WORTH, MY IDENTITY, AND THE UNIVERSE, REVOLVES AROUND MY MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE!
@@stanprogressstanyang In the full episode they actually do explain that some companies hire based off of your result in the MBTI, believing that certain 'personality types' work better overall than others. The episode is trying to debunk that attitude, because while personality tests are okay at best, their results can change based on so many things: how your day is going, if the weather is effecting your mood, if you're familiar with the test and can manipulate your answers etc etc
You all could stand to learn something from Carl Jung. He's so brilliant.
He thought humans had collective ancestral memories, Michael. But actually, no shade though. Some of his stuff was interesting, but I wouldn’t say he’s necessarily brilliant. Feel free to change my mind, I’m curious!
@@elliecarlson2788 well tbh I'm not educated on jung but he is definitely a brilliant mind. I think the problem is we confuse what brilliance is. this is because scientism is the main way of seeing things. we deem anything without a scientific base as worthless. well it was same situation back when the institutional religions were in charge. we have fallen to the same mistake that we think we know what's going on. you were a heretic when you went against the church, its the same with science now. and yes ofc its not the same thing but its the same pattern. for me the idea of "collective unconscious" is a totally reasonable concept. reason is not in the monopoly of science. ideas that are not based on the materialistic view of science can be equally valuable as the scientific ones. so for me jung is a brilliant mind bcs he was free from the constraints of the culture he was living in. he was really open-minded, had the courage to go deep into the psyche and had the intelligence to interpret it. he was a really intuitive thinker. and this is really important. major breakthroughs through out the history came from intuitive visions. from descartes' views to the discovery of dna. people had to see that couldn't be seen.
@@zekiaydn9081 wow, that was super informative! Exactly the discourse i was looking for. And you’re right, perhaps Jung was brilliant in the same way novelists are- he had to think outside of the box. Scientists had nothing to go off off at that time, and psychologists were focused on gathering massive amounts of qualitative, non-measurable data. The fact that he was willing to think about and put into words a lot of different thoughts about psychology (no matter how outlandish they might sound *today*) is what makes him so notable. I love your perspective!! We have to remember the context of the time period and recognize that the thoughts of people who aren’t up to today’s standards of science aren’t worthless. Thanks so much!!
I personally love the Myers-Briggs test but I also know that when it comes to human psychology you can't sum it up in just 16 categories. People are way too complex for that but most of society do love their categories.
You need to cross reference their zodiac sign with their chinese astrology animal to really know a person.
I took the test, I'm a mediator. It understood much about my personality and even guessed my love for fantasy. I bet Myers and Briggs did some research, despite a lack of degree.
There is some truth to the test, it's just based off of patterns and trends of peoples thought processes.
I got the same one and not a single thing matched me... lol I answered honestly, the questions are with little context and end up making people decide with a yes-no scale. Context is important and data is too. Emotions ruin things so you have go by logic. It makes statements that the majority of people can think " omg that is me," when reality people are always changing and traits can be born or die.
The test is a complete stew of nonsense. Just because you got something that matched much of your personality doesn't mean much, since it works pretty much like astrology in its descriptions - it would have felt just as accurate had you accidentally gotten a mixed-up description of the complete "opposite" type, since that's how these things are constructed.
Abdul Masaiev ýf
The big thing about Meiers-Briggs is, it's essentially a drunken stumble throughout human psychology. Very drunken. It may touch upon a lot of important concepts, but it'll also touch things that are completely meaningless, and it'll at some point end up with its face in the puddle. If you want a test that's got some scientific backing (asterisk asterisk asterisk mind you caveat emptor), look up Big Five.
Guys, just because yours was "pretty accurate" doesn't mean it's good science.
Genessa B first, what is "good" science??
And second, don't take it personally, the mbti test isn't the absolute truth... In fact you can alter it to have the results you want... Ultimately, you are the one who says which type you are based on your preferred ways of interacting with the world, the ones you control with the most ease
This video is very disappointing. It seemed like they were really stretching on this one. Maybe someone on the staff had a personal vendetta against the Myers-Briggs test, I don't know.
First of all, unlike things that are actually "total BS" (like astrology), Myers-Briggs is based on self reporting. You're basically telling the test what your personality is; the test isn't telling you. All the test does really is summarize and extrapolate from the results.
Second, any person can perform their own experiments and determine that the Myers-Briggs test does actually measure something non-trivial. This is obvious from the fact that different people get different results from each other, and those results tend to remain relatively consistent. Although they can fluctuate between a couple different types at different times in a person's life, the distribution of results for any given person is clearly not random or anywhere near random, so some actual thing is being measured by Myer's Briggs. For example, I have taken the test multiple times throughout the last 20 years and have gotten ENTP every single time. Everyone may not be that strictly consistent, but it is still clear that something real is being measured.
Lastly, one easy way to see whether a personality assessment is accurate is to go read the results of the ones you did not get as if that was the result you got, and see if you think that fits you just as well. Going back to astrology, it has been proven by experiment, that believers given horoscopes based off of random data tend to feel that horoscope applies to them just as much as when it is carefully prepared for them by an astrology professional. This is one way (among many) that we can know that astrology is not a way to discover someone's personality. However, this is not true of the results of the Myer's Briggs test. The Myers Briggs results are not vague and written to apply to everyone like horoscopes are. The results are quite specific and detailed. People who are given the wrong Myer's Briggs result notice it immediately as not even remotely descriptive of their personality. You can do this experiment yourself.
While Adam's videos usually contain some interesting information, this one is way off the mark, focusing more on attacking the people who developed the system, and providing nothing whatsoever to support the contention that Myers Briggs is "total BS."
P.S. Oh and although Jung's work was the basis of most of their work, Katherine Cook Briggs began researching personality independently a few years before Jung's book even came out, and already had developed her own similar personality metric 6 years before she read his book. And the TWO mystery novels Isabel Briggs Myers published in 1929 and 1934 were inspired by their work on personality types that had been ongoing since 1917. So no, it wasn't developed by some bored mystery novelists. More accurately, a couple mystery novels were written by a personality researcher.
Vance Baryn Great response! I have casually studied the various cognitive functions that are the basis for the test, and I am able to use it to read people better. I have been able to guess what my friends' results would be, and when they passed the test, I was proven right. This to me is a clear indication that the test is valid and measures something that's tangible. The Barnum effect cannot produce that kind of results.
Vance Baryn 🙌🏾 I think Adam and most of his staff are F types who feel so strongly that test like these just "box" them in. So they deny it's truth value and say whatever to avoid those feelings
I dunno if you noticed this Vance, but you just wrote 5 paragraphs in the RUclips comments on a 2 minute comedy video...
I was with you until you said "it's just as scientific as astrology." This is completely false. While psychology may not be a "hard" science, it's a hell of a lot more scientific than astrology. You almost had an interesting point until you screwed it up.
One can learn a lot from childish parlor games.
Like who is gullible enough to believe in them.
I have wasted a lot of time looking into my type . . .
There is no such thing as wasted time, it's all about your interpretation.
Intravenous DMT
But it is SO FUN!
Nick L but your interpretation to believe in mbti may suggest that you want gratification in every aspect without contradiction.
Jainil Patel
You can still have gratification with some contradiction. What contradictions bother you about MBTI? Maybe MBTI is a paradox for you and you haven't fully delved in to the "contradictions" enough to find that they aren't all that contradictory.
their arguments in the video are b rate ad hominems. thinking that you have to a phd science guy to come up with a theory that works in practice is retarded.
Just little correction there: Psychology has scientific relevance since the end of the 19th century, regarded as experimental psychology, it took part on social studies and the beginning of behavior research with controled procedures.
Jung is a surrogate of the psychoanalytic school of thought from Freud, which methodology was only phenomenological. But Jung approach to the human personality had remarked skews due to constant positive view of human interaction (athwart to his colleagues on such theory) and his contact with the spiritual.
Psychology is a soft science, and many of it's key principles have been completely discredited over the past 20 years with advances in neuroscience.
someone needs to ruin adam ruins everything
Meghan Bean he has
Though he did one on himself, it was merely refuting the minor times he was wrong as opposed to major errors. For Adam to be truly ruined, it would need an outside perspective via someone not associated with collegehumor.
He has two episodes. Emily ruin Adam Ruins Everything and the recent season finale Adam Ruins Himself.
I wish people did more research. Yes, the TESTS are inaccurate, especially that horrible 16 personalities test. But the subject isn’t. And the tests are inaccurate because they and most people think MBTI is based off of letter dichotomies (E/I, S/N, F/T, P/J) rather than cognitive functions, which is what MBTI is based on (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, Si). Additionally, MBTI isn’t based on your “personality” because you cannot put every human into 16 categories. After all, Anakin Skywalker and Alex from Madagascar are both ESFPs, yet they are so different in terms of personality. Instead, MBTI is about cognitive processes/functions - how your brain works. How you perceive and judge things. This is where Alex and Anakin’s similarities are, their likeness. They both have the same cognitive functions in the same order: Se-Fi-Te-Ni. And before you say this is saying their personalities are the same, it’s not. It’s saying their cognitive processes are the same, and this doesn’t mean they have to be similar - it means the way they perceive and judge the world (internally and externally, therefore coining the words “extroverted” and “introverted”, which, by the way, is more about if the processing and/or fixation of a particular cognitive function is focused externally or internally and not about if one is a social extrovert or introvert) is the same, though the functions can manifest very differently. Containing with the Alex/Anakin example, Alex is a very stereotypical ESFP, who leads with his Se - which, in simple terms, is an extraverted perceiving function that looks towards the outside world in a sensory/in-the-moment manner, observing what is happening through their five senses in real time - they’d think, “what is happening right now around me?” They make judgements quickly about the world through this function. Alex uses it in a quintessential “life is a party” manner, living, having fun and enjoying life in the moment. He makes observations and likes to focus in real time. Since Ni is his last function, he neglects thinking about the future and stays too much in the present, refusing to consider future hassles. Anakin is similar in the way he makes observations in real time and decides quickly what his personal take on it is (Se-Fi, just like Alex). He acts quickly (Se and some Te) and sometimes rashly as he doesn’t tend to think of the consequences of his actions, (demonstrating his lack of Ni) living too much in the present but in a very different way to Alex. Obviously, Alex is very happy and a party animal (literally) while Anakin is more melancholy, moody, and tumultuous in his emotions. (This also could be because of his BPD, which can influence how a function manifests). To further this, in ROTS Palpatine subtly plants an idea in Anakin’s head that his wife may be cheating on him, but doesn’t say anything explicitly - he just says Obi-Wan may be involved with a senator. Anakin immediately assumes it’s Padme, which is an unhealthy way in which inferior Ni and his preference of Se manifests. This is a common pattern of manifestation for SOME ESFPs - when under stress, they may immediately judge a circumstance quickly and then, right after making the observations and perceiving the information, they may instantly assume the worst is going to happen, which parallels Anakin’s rash judgement and assumptions. Another way the dominant Se and inferior Ni manifests in ESFPs when they’re under stress is that they’ll try to drown themselves in the present and completely forget about any future planning or pondering, further leaving their Ni in the dust. This is more so what Alex tends to do.
I apologise if what I said didn’t make any sense towards the end, but I suggest looking at mistypeinvestigator.com to learn more about cognitive functions and what MBTI is ACTUALLY about. It has lots of articles debunking MBTI misconceptions, a guide to self testing, information about the cognitive functions and even a test, which I find is the only mostly accurate MBTI test EVER. It’s also great because it’s open ended, ranking how much they think you might use a particular function and showing you a list of your most viewed ones, which is how they decide what type you are - and they even list every type based on the one you’re most likely to be and the one you’re least likely to be!
One note: there weren’t originally 8 personality types - those were the eight cognitive functions that Carl Jung proposed. Please do your research.
Because of the misinformation that MBTI is based off of letters and not functions, the system has been thought of in a very shallow way, with few people actually grasping the true fundamentals of what the subject is really based upon, like this video and some of the comments.
the portrayal of the women in this video is so cringey... those women had to be a lot smarter in order to develop a widely acknowledged way of categorizing personality types. you can deconstruct myers briggs without bs ad hominem arguments jeez
Yes you have to be a super genius to make up a bunch of personality types based mostly on personal observations
I wonder what Jordan B. Peterson's response to this would be?
The Centalist I was thinking about the same thing. He's more of a big 5 guy anyways. It seems to me that Myers Briggs has a degree of accuracy as long as you are on the extremes of each choice.
The way Adam denounces it seems sensationalist at best without delving into the real psychological implications. Kind of annoying imo.
The Centalist Clean your room and sort yourself oot?
I had to scroll pretty far down to find a comment about JP! Have you tweeted this to him?
Bet he agrees since he doesn't follow this test and he uses data
Anon: "My favorite color is yellow"
*(2 years later)*
Anon: "My favorite color is blue"
Science: "Favorite colors" do not exist, stupid.
People minds are dynamic and, therefore, their test results will be dynamic.
umm is this a rebuttle, btw its been a year did your favorite color change
@@shady8045 Lol! Nice.
Didnt know that choosing MBTI personalities was like choosing your favorite superhero or your favorite pair of socks LOL. Doesnt make it scientific or valid either way.
RUIN MY WHOLE IDENTITY FOR ME ADAM I CAN TAKE IT!
If 2 people get the same personality type chances are they answered most of the questions in the same way which means that generally they have the same way of thinking/ looking at things
nobody expects a free 10 minute online quiz to be 100% accurate its suppose to be used as a reference
No, not as a reference, as entertainment.
Modern MBTI tests take more than 10 minutes.
Trevin Taylor the quiz is 95% the reason I have the career i have now from looking at the recommended jobs when i was doing the test in middle school, so i might be biased but its impacted my life a lot
And two people of the same personality type can be extremely different. Take Jesus and Hitler, for example. Both ENFJs.
AtarahDerek You're comparing a 2000 year old fictional character to a genocidal man who started a war that killed 70 million people...
See somthing new everyday I guess
As many have already said, the MBTI is a zodiac sign for atheists.
whenever i take those tests, the personality test gives me something thats totally not me
16personalities is not mbti
I took the 16 Personalities test, and I agree with my result.
As much as I love Adams show, I was pretty disappointed in this clips' attempt to completely discredit something that has been thoroughly researched since it's (admittedly imperfect) creation. (I'm a psychology phd student if that matters to you). I certainly don't think the Myers Briggs test is perfect, but it's not completely random and designed to apply to everyone like astrology, as some commenters are claiming. If you take the time to read each personality description, they really are very different. There are certainly people who are exceptions to the rule but it does accurately represent trends based on groups of people with similar thinking. I felt like this ended up unfairly discrediting personality psychology as a whole based on the origins of one test.
But it's not scientific. In the end, it's no different than horoscopes
jessjoey Hi, personality psych PhD student here. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with looking at general behavioral trends rather than specific behaviors, the MBTI is not used in the research literature because it has poor reliability and does not have continuous variables, like the more popular FFM. I know you conceded that the MBTI has imperfections, but low reliability is severe, and puts a cap on validity (as I’m sure you are aware). Personality psychologists are desperately trying to distance themselves from the MBTI, which has no place in science. The general public still views it as a scientific instrument; they need to realize that we have moved on. There’s nothing wrong with using it for entertainment purposes, but don’t put too much stock into it. As for the people saying it’s no better than astrology...that’s a little extreme. Astrology is based on literally nothing. The MBTI has poor test characteristics and is not as accurate as other personality inventories, but it’s not voodoo star-magic.
Then you should also know that disillusion and bias know no intellectual bounds.
jessjoey it really has not been thoroughly researched by anyone. By all means provide the study done from a credible psychological source on it.
@@snuffydoodles Hi, i'm a psych major, and I agree that MBTI isn't good, as a test.
Although my issue with Adam is how he presents this as something that define's someone's personality, and misunderstanding constructs.
MBTI seemed to me the less-polished versions of the empirically-keyed tests, which segregate test-takers based on how they answer the test, like maximum-performance tests discriminates high-scorers from low-scorers. It's not going to define a person's exact personality, but it does segregate people into types -- in the MBTI's case it's the 16 Personality Type of Jung, which kind of serves the purpose of other trait-based tests anyways.
It's not good mainly because it's old and we know better, such as tests based on the trait-model of OCEAN -- or perhaps the new one called HEXACO, but it's far from hocus-pocus.
A cool origin story for sure. But I wouldn't call it "completely stupid" or "total B.S.". Upon taking the "test" and getting my results from 16personalities.com (INFP if it matters to anybody) I was fairly surprised by how accurate the write-up was for me in specific ways and in ways that I had never thought about; it knew that I have an affinity for fiction-writing and literature in general, that I have an easier time in linguistic endeavors than most, that I have no problem typing or interacting one-on-one but have anxiety about voice-only interactions, that I forgo my own needs in the pursuit of the needs of others, I take criticisms too personally and am extremely hard on myself, etc., etc.
That's not to say it should be taken as an end-all be-all of exactly who and what you are and will ever be; people change over time and truthful answers at different times in a person's life can end up with different results. And to make excuses for yourself based on "well I'm a , I can't help it" is absolute rubbish. But it *can* be a useful tool to examine yourself from a different perspective and develop or improve yourself so you can accept and recognize your strengths and acknowledge your weaknesses.
So say what you will, but taking the test and reading my results write-up has definitely helped me overall.
*says they are an INFP*
*writes a wall of text to defend MBTI*
You are DEFINITELY an INFP haha.
Thanks for articulating this so well. I’ve often been accused of typecasting by my ESTJ husband (lmao, typical), but he just can’t seem to grasp that I view those kind of tests more as a self examination tool, and as a way of seeing my inherent attributes for their potential as both strengths and weaknesses. That’s the part I really find fascinating, that strengths and weaknesses are so intertwined, and how viewing them that way is extremely useful for those wanting to make peace with their shortcomings and redirect them into helpful qualities. I’m also an INFP, and everything you mentioned matches me as well 😜 And even though some types might be similar to each other, anybody who thinks all the results are just vague mish mash that can apply to anybody clearly hasn’t seen an accurately typed ESTJ and INFP attempting to be married 😂
Lol, I’m and INFP and I’ve wanted to be an author since 2nd grade. I had an existential crisis when the Internet guessed that. Adam hasn’t given us any facts as to why it isn’t useful or consistent, just that it’s origin was unscientific. If we can prove that the test has reliability (gives consistent results) and validity (accurately predicts what it’s supposed to), it *is* scientific. And it does, so…. That’s that.
@@elliecarlson2788 Mine was less an existential crisis and more a paranoia one of like "am I being Truman Show'd?" :D
After looking at it and stuff, nothing really is something that doesn't follow from what I answered; it just wasn't the standard "Buzz Feed quiz" direct link of like "You said you like the color green, green is your favorite color!".
But yeah, it's definitely less Horoscope "you were born in August so today you will lose something" and more Vocational Guidance "So you scored well on all the language questions and you expressed an enjoyment of working with people; have you considered a job in the Linguistic Anthropology field as other people who have done the same have found satisfaction there?".
It's no wonder us INFPs have no problem with the test because of our developed Fi Function. We're very connected to our internal values and morals, we go deeper into topics that interests us such as our personality, we think hard about who we are and we're very honest. This makes it easier for us to be "correctly labelled" by the tests, even though we dislike being strictly labelled.
Since we usually go deeper into topics that interest us, we are not affected by common misconceptions that most people have due not researching properly, so we end up finding out about cognitive functions, and understanding that the test is actually about one's *preferred* functions, it's about how *likely* we are to act a certain way.
That's also the reason we have so much to say because we go deep, think, research and explore all the nuances.
I hate that people just automatically jump onboard with what tibia guy says. Even if there was no science to back it up then, there is plenty of research to suggest this test to be very accurate in recent years. This guy just likes to take generic facts and use them to make far fetched claims.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Maybe it's because the test is so vague and based on broad generalizations? Or maybe it's the fact that people will choose answers that allude to the result they personally desire which creates the illusion of accuracy?
I watched the video just now thinking it was like some scientific 15 minute debunking video. I love Adam Ruins Everything but It was a 2 minute quirky video strawmanning MBTI and basically saying "these people weren't even qualified/credible." Kind of elitist especially in a time where sexism and racism molded what sciences were taken more seriously than others. People considered qualifying was based on very biased social stigmas.
Plus, MBTI was never considered hard science but a more social prediction based on analyzing the behaviors of people. A lot of psychology is very subjective and circumstantial evidence as well which is why diagnosing people of things like BPD, PTSD, DID, Etc is kinda hard. Personalities aren't exactly measurable empirically and the Myerr Briggs test followers never pretended it to be gospel. I could see flaws in it, but this 2 minute video doesn't really address much
my feelings exactly.
"oMg GuYs, i JUsT kIlLeD mY pET DoG I'm SuCh a IJKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ"
Reading through the comment section has provided a wealth of opinions and insights to help remind me that the reality of the situation is far more nuanced and complex than this video intimates.
I would hope that this program would hold itself to higher standards if it wants to be a standard-bearer for popularizing rational skepticism, critical inquiry and scientific investigation -- noble pursuits, but requiring more discipline than demonstrated in this particular video, as evidenced by all the great questions and counter-arguments posed in the comment section.
@P. B Amygdala Many of the comments (including yours) fail to recognize that this is only a teaser. The actual episode goes far more in depth. Just because you’re to lazy to find their full work, it does not mean they aren’t practicing good-faith skepticism.
I've found that the test has helped me better understand myself by just making me think about my own personality in ways that I hadn't before. I don't use it to make decisions, only to reflect, and hopefully get to know myself better.
mediator?
@@SynoPTL man u gotta forget those cliche names that they attach to the types, those mean nothing. What you really need to know are your cognitive functions
@@DogeFrom2014 I know about cognitive functions, I was asking if the result they got was "Mediator" because it sounded kinda like they took the 16p test but looking back the comment sounds less like that
All you said was that the people who made it were unqualified but didn’t explain why it doesn’t work
Yes because this is just part of the episode the full episode explains that
[Me watching this 2 years ago having no idea what the test was]: haha yeah this is stupid people are stupid and-
[Me six months ago, takes test]: oh cool INFJ-T
[Me now]: help it's all too accurate
Same thing happened to me. I just believed what he said, but after finding out my type through research and some tests, I found that it was way too accurate.
Before where I blindly agreed with him, now I have a counterargument for everything he said. Like how later in the episode he describes that people get different test results from taking the more than once, but now I realize that the tests are not the best at indicating your type and people should probably do some additional research.
@@ghaywoood5 You find the test accurate because the description of your personality type is so vague that it fits almost every living person on Earth. Descriptions like "Sometimes you go through a series of mixing emotions without understand why" fits everyone.
Also known as the Barnum Effect. Google that.
@@sirbedivere5670 I know what you're talking about. I'm not talking about type description, I agree those are very broad. When I said people should do more research, I meant finding out about cognitive functions.
The cognitive functions describe how your brain process information. I think MBTI is not good for describing your personality, but rather how your brain takes in information. Once I found out about the 8 cognitive functions, I better understood why I think the way I do.
Sometimes you can use the cognitive functions to predict behavior, but it's not always the case.
Anyway, I fully agree that the type descriptions are not useful. I use MBTI today to better understand how people process information and come to their conclusions
@@ghaywoood5 Just out of.curiosity, what did your test indicate your cognitive function.preferences were? My hunch falls on Ni being one of the major drivers.
@@justinjose999 I haven't taken too many cognitive functions tests, mostly read the descriptions. The ones I did take were a bit inconsistent. What was consistent was preference over Fe and Ti. I think people have a hard time describing Si/Ni which is why they weren't consistent for me. I'm an ISFJ so the tests were accurate about the Fe/Ti part. I think people hype up Ni as too magical and oversimplify Si as traditional.
Well no, it's origins were not scientific. But that doesn't necessarily mean that no science has been put into it since, it's not like the theories haven't changed in decades. Also everything in it may not be true, but that doesn't mean none of it is. It's not really deniable that, while everyone is unique (and MBTI doesn't say that they aren't), there are in a sense different "types" of people, and people that have a similar thinking to a certain MBTI type will relate to others of that type because of it. The theories also point to trends that are common of people that identify as a type. For instance, people that are an INFP might identify with traits of dominant Fi, but because they've developed those traits they've suppressed other traits like those linked to inferior Te, which brings those flaws along with it when what you've suppressed comes out. Sure, MBTI isn't all true, but it's not all fake either. I'll definitely give you this, though: the online tests are often inaccurate. But that doesn't void the theory. This video's title is an exaggeration for click-bait purposes.
most valuable comment in the thread
That's may be the case, but maybe try looking it this way. The way to catagerize things, the words need to be clarify or very specific. In the myer-briggs test, what you said is true that if it doesn't have scientific background doesn't mean it isn't scientific, but for the test to be proven truly scientific, it needs to and can be tested or proven as much as possible. The thing is this test can't be proven. It only came from theory which has no strong evidence that can support this test. Jung said as in video because he knew that his name was being used and he also knew that his theory doesn't have any strong evidence either.
This is just a teaser. The full episode does more than just address the origins.
but wait, if adam ruins corporation is a corporation... shouldn't we disregard all trust in it?
Clearly, since all corporations are demon-spawn and those who own or work for them have long since abandoned their humanity.
mitori yes, that's essentially the message
Someone wasn't happy with their personality type 😂😂😂
It’s literally just astrology for people who want to feel like they’re basing their categorization on somethingn scientific
The whole problem is that it's too broad and mired with inconsistent generalizations, mainly in its cognitive functions. Everyone thinks they're an expert on how certain types interact with the functions, but merely just filter it through their interpretations. Socionics is much more accurate, because it mitigates the ambiguity of MBTI and gives clear distinctions between how types interact, what the functions are, and how they are grouped in terms of relationships.
Contrary to popular belief, sensors are ideal for intuitives depending on the Ne/Si and Ni/Se dichotomy. Same goes for Feeling/Thinking and Introversion/Extroversion. For example, in Socionics, a dual pair, or most ideal relationship, would be an INFj (correlates with INFP MBTI) and ESTj (extroverts remain the same in MBTI/Socionics), because of their complimentary functions Fi/Te and Ne/Si.
Also, there are great websites that actually research Socionics using both abstract and real-life examples, like World Socionics Society.
worldsocionics.blogspot.com
FireNinja606 Exactly, Socionics is the closest we have to a perfect personality system.
Entp that lives with an isfj. Granted she's my mom but I have no plans on going anywhere near another of her type, especially in romance
Just a new ship for those who don't believe in tarot readings, psychics and blood type fortune telling.
It's not supposed to be hard science. It never was. It's just a really helpful yet imperfect tool for breaking down the way different people perceive the world and act accordingly. People have found it useful for decades. It's stayed relevant for a reason. Just because it wasn't based in statistics doesn't mean it's "stupid." You can't make a test for something as complex as people and nail down absolutely everything. That's exactly why the man himself says that "everyone is an exception."
Good grief, this channel is pretty obnoxious most of the time.
Sorry Adam, Myers-Briggs never pretended to be science in the first place, and certainly not hard science, so this is a pretty shoddy strawman exercise.
Amy Bee there is has general interpretation of the test as being a accurate and true when it is not because it's unscientific. Furthermore It is often presented as scientific in the context that it is taken .
Some people treat it with the uttermost importance however when I really do not think it holds up
Allie Doak Did you really just say something can't be accurate or true because it isn't scientific? You adherents of scientism kill me. Do you just think all discoveries made before science are wrong? Do you even understand the point of science?
TheMinuteSquirrel I think you don't understand the point of science. You can't know something is true or not until you have some way of re-creating the process and/or gathering evidence.
There was never a "before science", either. I'm pretty sure the human who first realized that friction makes heat, and a stick could create enough to start a fire, was the greatest scientist of their time.
This isn't scientific so it holds no specific facts or even trends that can be observed. HOWEVER, the human brain is very tricky and pretty much no attempts to analyze personality are 100% scientific. We don't know enough. The MBTI is good at getting a general look at some of your traits, but it doesn't show who you are as a person.
Classic feminazi
I normally don't dislike videos, but here ya go!
Same!
Ooohh...my college friends won't like this....
Can confirm, am in college, don't like this
Donovan Galeana that's because it did
So they're not scientific, but they use peer reviewed and scientific/ accurate fact checked sources for them as well as experts. MBTI is a lie.
I might have just lost some respect for Adam... It's hard to say mbti is total bs and not talk about cognitive functions. It's like some of channels read a few articles half of which disapprove mbti without all the facts which can lead to a huge confirmation bias, and then come to the conclusion that it is completely useless. These arguments against mbti rarely bother to bring up cognitive functions, which gives meaning beyond what each letter represents in a four letter sequence.
Got halfway into this video before I realized I was thinking about the Voight-Kampff test... I wondered why there weren't any Blade Runner references.
I call BS on THIS video. from personal experience I've taken the test many times and always got INFJ, and I've also made a lot of my friends take it, and everytime they read the general description afterwards they are amazed by how accurate it is. And no, when you compare one personality type to the other the description is very different for each type. contrary to what some people believe, it does not give you a general description that fits every single person, and I've read through all of the types and most of them (that being my own and like one more) I don't see myself in at all!
This
"Personal experience"
Personal experience of clicking buttons lmao
Accuracy my ass
stop thinking you're so much more special than everybody else sweetheart..we're all different..none of us has the same personality..we're all special..its pretty ridiculous to think that humanity can be broken down into only 16 personalities out of billions of ppl
(coming from a person who cant stop getting INFJ on the MBT)
Likewise.
I dismissed Myer's Brigg as bunk when I first it heard it existed. After having actually taken the test, I was floored by the accuracy. I've given the test out to my circle and every single person whom took it literally fit their personality to the T. In addition, my friends who are in long-term relationships literally are paired up with the exact "best fit" personailty partner without knowing it. Including myself.
Part of the "sciencing" if you will, comes from evidence. Data. Well, I challenge you take it and give it to your friends. Observe and see how well it fits.
Also for fun, look up your own personailty type interviews (or people close to you) on youtube and check out the way they speak/body language. Then check out other personality types that aren't you. I was straight out shocked.
Well that the test is not "scientific" was clear. It never shows the whole individual. it is just a fun test and you can see how the person's basic characteristics are. how is that even new???
Suffkeller It has exactly the validity of a Buzzfeed quiz but is still used by many colleges and businesses to make descisions on what to do with applicants and employees. And while it may be fun to share your result with others and compare how similiar it says you are, it, like the zodiac, easily allows for stereotyping based on result. Its just a bad test.
Suffkeller, shouldn't the long claw on the raptor be the claw on the foot?
Its not at all like Zodiac though. Its a generalized test about someones particular characteristics. This isn't unscientific or silly. Its like saying "Some people like cookies, lets put them in the people who like cookies category".
Suffkeller but the thing is it's not even a test that really categorizes anything it is so complete made of b******* that's so arbitrary anyone could make a new one today
MrLittlelawyer it is both unscientific and silly, watch the above video if you have any doubts about that
I was always skeptical of The Mayers Briggs test, but I'm an INTJ so obviously I would be skeptical.
No mention whatsoever about cognitive functions. They literally didn't do their homework
It's not the full episode.
Someone didn't do his homework.
@@NIHIL_EGO And professionals in the field of neuroscience have proven its correlation to actual science. Take Dario Nardi for example.
Someone got dropped on their head as a child.
@@zereon I don't see what it have to do with what I said. I've been neutral in my reply, I didn't said that he was wrong or right, just pointed out the fact that this isn't the full episode.
TL;DR You're neither wrong nor right, you're just completely out of touch. Dummy.
Cognitive functions are a spook, they don't objectively exist in the brain, Nardi is grasping at the straws so hard
Wayne H cognitive function refers to multiple mental abilities, including how a person learns, thinks, reasons, remembers, problem solves, makes decisions, etc.. it would be incredibly ignorant to think that the brain does not use cognitive functions
So how has the Myers-Briggs test become something that's even taught in college level courses?
to be honest it's a pretty good conversation starter
I took psychology this year and, while the IQ test isn't perfect, Adam massively oversimplified the concept to make it sound more ridiculous than it is
Its quite accurate though, its not like a buzzfeed quiz, as most people actually finds it fits their personality
There are various psychiatric conditions which will not produce reliable results on personality tests. They are sore about their perceived "inadequacy" and "alienness." They can have very high IQ's, so be careful of the smart traps.
Because it's vague. Just like a horoscope.
don't you dare talk trash about my man buzzfeed quiz ; every people is like a Friends character and you know it >:(
Same thing could be said for Horoscope or Phrenology.
Most of the comment section: This disagrees with my current beliefs on personality tests so therefore I will dismiss it and overlook the fact that there is no evidence to support my hypothesis.
I will also overlook the fact that this isn't the full episode.
Joe Joe to be fair, a lot of the comments also call out the genetic fallacy behind Adam’s argument
JaiLN to be fair, a lot of these comments also fail to recognize that this is just a teaser for Adam’d full argument.
I don't think it's claiming to be a scientific test that everyone should live by, it's just a fun way to know what your personality and how it differs from other people so you can understand them better. I'm just saying it's not "Total B.S." and why is this #8 on trending? it's not even a funny video, and it's click bait, and how is Carl Jung not a scientist at all? I'm an INTJ btw.
If you are an INTJ (so am I) then I am sure you are familiar with the INTJ circlejerk that exists online. I wouldn't say that it's just a fun way to know your personality. People take it wayyy to seriously. Look at reddit. All these Sherlock wannabes talking about how they are special because they are INTJ, it's ridiculous and irrational.
Oh cool you guys are INTJs
You're like my types super smart twin :3
I'd like to think that all the successful INTJs are out in the real world doing something with their lives. . .
So I'm an ENFJ, and it's helped me to gain some insight on the combination of traits I have and what the heck they could be used for. However, as someone else said in the comment section, it's just a starting point. It's not the determining factor in my life for who I am or what I'm doing. Also, it's to have your friends take it and see what everybody gets.
In Jung's "Psychological types" he basically wrote himself that "If you are reading this book in hope to split people into categories - better close it now". These "types" are psychological functions that are in EVERY human's mind. The question was - which type is more or less dominant in particular human at a particular time of his life.
And Jung in fact used scientific method in his research.
And so many people will buy into it whole heartedly because of confirmation bias,
It’s basically like horoscopes and that zodiac stuff
Jung's pretty great.
No, "Let's throw out his system because the Neo-Freudian studies are outdated and modern studies have either better explanations for his correct ideas, or have completely debunked the wrong ones."
Just because the man was smart doesn't mean you have to hang on to what he said all the time. Jung was the first in many Neo-Freudians who more or less fell into the same trap Freud did, "I am going to use my personal experiences as a cornerstone for my theories of psychology." He was smart, and some of his works make sense, but psychology didn't throw out his system willy-nilly.
Luckily it all boils down to cognitive functions that take in information. Take Judgements and Perceptions. I wonder if we can come up with a system that classifies them better than thinking and feeling and sensing and intuition?
Five Factor Model tries to expand that system. Or at least rename it.
Jungian, Freudian and Lacanian studies are still very relevant today, but incompatible with a field in psychology dominated by neuropsychology and more interesting in the philosophy they inspired.
Jung explicitly chose Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition as four scales personality could be measured, and wrote out loud that there are also scales such as Memory which is a crucial one a human personality can vary on but didn't include it in because he wanted his typology to be relevant with how humans perceive the world around them. Sensing is how you check something's there. Thinking is how you check what it is. Feeling is how you decide whether you should accept it or not. Intuition is how you find out where it is from and where it goes. Basically every object we encounter goes through these four procedures.
I just took this test in a counseling class last semester to try and help me make a road map to a major I'd like to pursue... it didn't really help me at all... I'm still lost.
Does Adam have scientific proof that the MBTI isn't useful or accurate? This just sounds like ad hominem attacks. Saying "only scientists should write about psychology" seems a bit silly. Now that we ARE living in the age of data and scientific method, why doesn't he use a scientific study in his argument?
Katya Kean he cites his sources on the website.
Proof of his claims available in video
*Burden of proof lies on those making a claim
Lol. Bro we are living in the age where the scientific method and math are supposedly covertly racist. That's the age we live in.
There are studies available especially in applied business psychology where it matters the most. It has no predictability on performance. There definitely are studies done for clinical psychology, I am not familiar with that branch, but I know it is not used to predict psychopathology so it falls flat there too.
It is a pseudo-intellectual horoscope
The burden of proof is on those making claims for the test
Adam needs to ruin the "researchers" on this show. 🙄
Swear game theory said it was accurate
Death Dawn accurate and scientific is not the same... I could say that more than 50% of politicians are corrupt, and it COULD be accurate, but without proof and proper research, it's not SCIENTIFIC
Death Dawn multiple studies have shown that the test results change every time you take it, it even depends on how you're feeling that day, if you've eaten, etc. it's just not reliable
Probably just their theory... A GAME THEORY!
It's not scientifically accurate because it was made by people who weren't scientists so obviously they were retarded, but it can show some insight into what kind of person you are, nonetheless
Eh, I wouldn't trust Game Theory for facts considering they fail to research certain things.
"Sciency-sounding jargon" completely describes the purpose of this series.
Beta Adam seems to be good at projecting his personal views on others, methinks.
In Vino Veritas I’m willing to bet you fail to see the irony in your comment.
Whatever they say remember this: you are not doomed to be someone, you ALWAYS have the possibility to become who you really dream to be. Your acts of the past don't determine your future self
if you narrow down the types enough it all comes down to "which Hogwarts house are you?"
seriously, adam, it's just for fun. Next time try ruining Spongebob Squarepants. WE DON'T USE IT IN STUDIES!
But I feel like they know me so well!
Genus Brewing like horoscopes?
+Trevin Taylor horoscopes are based on the stars. Myers Briggs is based on a test
Trevin Taylor
How deeply did you dig in to astrology before you dismissed it? What about MBTI?
Dont worry, I already know the answer. It's really cute that you can make fun of people's beliefs without making a true effort to actually understand them. It's almost as if your disbelief is a belief system in itself 😂.
*Barnum effect
Genus Brewing To be fair, they do. Kind of. If you answer questions that generally suggest you are introverted, it tells you that you're an introvert. It knows you, because you answered a specific set of questions that will obviously lead to the conclusion, not because each category. The number 16, or anything like that means anything.
The problem with the test is that every single part of it is totally arbitrary, not that it isn't "accurate".
Einstein was working with patents while coming up with his first groundbreaking theories. According to your logic Adam these theories should be discredited due to him not being a scientist. Do you realize how irrelevant it is to talk about the creators when trying to criticize the creations? It's like saying a painting isn't beautiful because you don't like the painter.
Yes, but Einstein had knowledge in the subject and his theory can be proven as much as it needs. While this test doesn't and can't be proven. Because this test came purely from theory that sound likely but can't be proven or has any strong evidence to support it. The test need to be objective. I understand your metaphor but your metaphor is about subjective perspective while any test on this world need to be objective.
Ad hominem?
Even working with patents, Einstein had a solid scientific background, and send his theories to credited scientific papers. This video explains how the test was created, not only who create it. Everything about it was flawed, and was never even close to be scientific in any way.
No. In science everything is theory, even when proved. Relativity and quantum mechanichs are still theories, even after 1 centuries of successful experiments. That's because science is always a work in action, and even the best theory could be overtaken in the future.
Acecold Killer
Science is the systematic search for knowledge. The keyword here is "systematic".
There's nothing wrong with using the Myers-Briggs test as a source of entertainment (effectively like one of those Buzzfeed quizzes). Problems arise when companies (including mine) start testing their employees and grouping and judging them based on the results. Sometimes they'll even make applicants take the test and decide whether or not to hire them based on the results. It's honestly disturbing.